Subjective Morality

[The Tanager]

I started this post out of another discussion with Divine Insight. DI has made some arguments for morality being subjective. I'm still trying to get the terminology straight.

If morality is not absolute, then it can only be subjective. A matter of opinion.

We need to get our terms straight when talking about our human morality. I agree with you concerning 'subjective' being a matter of opinion. Objective, then, would mean not being a matter of opinion. Just like the shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion. X is good or bad for everyone.

Absolute vs. situational is a sub-issue concerning objectivism. The absolutist would say X is good or bad for everyone (and thus objectivism) no matter the situation. The situationalist would say X is good or bad for everyone but qualified by the situation.

In this phrasing, morality can be objectivist without being absolute. Now, I don't care if these are the terms we agree upon or not, but there must be some term for each concept I've presented. If you want to use "absolute" for "objective" above, that's fine. But you've got to tell me what two terms you want to use for what I termed the "absolute vs. situational" sub-issue.

[Bust Nak]

The part I bolded isn't irrelevant to you. You think there is no true opinion. It seems to me that without a truth of the matter, then there is no real damage.

Okay, I thought you were saying that was part of what an objectivist might believe. So, why not? Without an objective taste, then there is no real unhealthy food? Stealing things from me mean I would have to go without the stolen item regardless of whether it is immoral or not, why is that damage not real? Pain is subjective and only exist within you mind and does not correspond with reality outside of yourself, why do you bother with limiting pain if it is not real? I don't accept this no real damage thing at all.

What is your belief about the proposition that "rap music is good"? I don't think that statement is objectively true or false. It is subjectively true (and false). When I, as the judge/appraiser/subject, think it is true depends on who it is being ascribed to. If you make that statement, then I think it is false. If my son makes that statement, then I think it is true. That this statement is subjectively true has nothing to do with my personal taste on the matter (except the obvious statement that my subjective opinion is that this statement is a subjective truth). What makes it subjectively true or false to me is sourced in the subject's mind making the statement, of whom I am judging.

I do not agree. The truth needs to reflect objective reality, I do away with the concept of "subjective truth" completely.

First of all "rap music is good" by itself, in isolation, is an incomplete statement. There is an implicit "in my opinion." "In my opinion, rap music is good" when I say it, is not the same statement as the one when you son says it, the 'I' refers to a different subject.

As such, "in your son's opinion, rap music is good" would be an objectively true statement; it's an accurate reflection of objective reality - it represent a fact, the fact that you son likes rap. Where as "in my opinion, rap music is good" would be an objectively false statement. That statement is synonymous with "in Bust Nak's opinion, rap music is good" which is an inaccurate reflection of objective reality, it is not the case that I like rap music. It doesn't matter who is evaluating the truth of that statement, you, me, your son or any other appraiser, it's still false.

What is your belief about the proposition that "the earth is flat"? I think that statement is objectively false. That I, as the judge/appraiser/subject, think it is objectively false does not take anyone's personal opinions or tastes into consideration (except for the obvious statement that it agrees with my opinion on the matter), unlike the previous example. You say it, my son says it, someone else says it; doesn't matter. What makes this objectively true or fase is sourced in something outside of the subjective minds making the statement.

This much sounds good to me.

It seems to me that what you say about morality is more like the latter than the former. What is your belief about the proposition that "child abuse is harmful/bad"?

As above, it's an incomplete statement by itself. By default it means "according to The Tanager child abuse is harmful/bad" with the implicit "in my opinion," tagged on. This is an objectively true statement. By I suspect what you are really asking is "in Bust Nak's opinion, child abuse is harmful/bad." This too is an objectively true statement. Neither statements is a true opinion.

[The Tanager]

Okay, I thought you were saying that was part of what an objectivist might believe. So, why not? Without an objective taste, then there is no real unhealthy food? Stealing things from me mean I would have to go without the stolen item regardless of whether it is immoral or not, why is that damage not real? Pain is subjective and only exist within you mind and does not correspond with reality outside of yourself, why do you bother with limiting pain if it is not real? I don't accept this no real damage thing at all.

Which is another sign, I think, that you are thinking like an objectivist rather than a subjectivist. Yes, you must deal with an objective consequence, but that the consequence is net-damaging rather than net-beneficial, if subjectivism is true, doesn't make sense to me, if there is no true judgment for all. If one's personal taste puts the enjoyment of food higher than living longer and "opinion is all there is," i.e., that there is no true judgment there, then eating unhealthy or taking from another person isn't damaging; it's beneficial for them.

First of all "rap music is good" by itself, in isolation, is an incomplete statement. There is an implicit "in my opinion."

No, that is not implicit. If it was, then "the earth is a ball" would implicitly mean "in my opinion, the earth is a ball." "The earth is a ball" is a complete statement and so is "rap music is good." The former statement is true for everyone, while the latter's truth varies depending on the person, after we take into account their subjective tastes.

"In my opinion, rap music is good" when I say it, is not the same statement as the one when you son says it, the 'I' refers to a different subject.

As such, "in your son's opinion, rap music is good" would be an objectively true statement; it's an accurate reflection of objective reality - it represent a fact, the fact that you son likes rap. Where as "in my opinion, rap music is good" would be an objectively false statement. That statement is synonymous with "in Bust Nak's opinion, rap music is good" which is an inaccurate reflection of objective reality, it is not the case that I like rap music. It doesn't matter who is evaluating the truth of that statement, you, me, your son or any other appraiser, it's still false.

I agree. But now you are talking about a different statement. And by adding "in my opinion" we are talking about what people's opinions are, not any further statement about whether opinion is all there is on the issue being addressed. "In my opinion, the earth is a ball" is objectively false when a flat-earther makes that statement. That says nothing about whether "the earth is a ball" is objective or subjective.

As above, it's an incomplete statement by itself. By default it means "according to The Tanager child abuse is harmful/bad" with the implicit "in my opinion," tagged on. This is an objectively true statement. By I suspect what you are really asking is "in Bust Nak's opinion, child abuse is harmful/bad." This too is an objectively true statement. Neither statements is a true opinion.

We tag on "in my opinion,..." when we are asking what people's opinions are. That is simple subjectivism. You said you are going beyond this and disagreeing with the objectivist. At that point we are discussing the statement "child abuse is harmful/bad" just like we discuss "the earth is a ball" or "rap music is good".

[Bust Nak]

Which is another sign, I think, that you are thinking like an objectivist rather than a subjectivist. Yes, you must deal with an objective consequence, but that the consequence is net-damaging rather than net-beneficial, if subjectivism is true, doesn't make sense to me, if there is no true judgment for all. If one's personal taste puts the enjoyment of food higher than living longer and "opinion is all there is," i.e., that there is no true judgment there, then eating unhealthy or taking from another person isn't damaging; it's beneficial for them.

What exactly is the problem here, which part doesn't make sense? Here you accept that whether something is healthy or not, is independent from judgment. The consequences is objectively net damaging, regardless of whether the subject value enjoyment over health or not. And at the same time you've agreed with me all along that food taste is subjective, right? Which means you accept that there is no true judgment when it comes to food taste? From where I am sitting, you accept all the same stuff I do when the context is food, do you find you own stance not making sense or inconsistent also?

No, that is not implicit. If it was, then "the earth is a ball" would implicitly mean "in my opinion, the earth is a ball."

That's a hasty generalisation. Here you are talking about an objective matter - the shape of the Earth. Meanwhile the other statement is a subjective matter. An implicit "in my opinion" exist only in the latter kinds of statements, you can't generalise that rule to all statements.

I agree. But now you are talking about a different statement. And by adding "in my opinion" we are talking about what people's opinions are, not any further statement about whether opinion is all there is on the issue being addressed.

Stop for a moment here, you point out that by adding "in my opinion" we are talking about what people's opinions are as if you were under the impression we weren't already talking about people's opinion before. What do you think music taste is, if not matters of subjective opinion?

"In my opinion, the earth is a ball" is objectively false when a flat-earther makes that statement. That says nothing about whether "the earth is a ball" is objective or subjective.

That's right, but a flat-Earther wouldn't say that, he does not think the shape of the Earth is a matter of opinion.

We tag on "in my opinion,..." when we are asking what people's opinions are. That is simple subjectivism. You said you are going beyond this and disagreeing with the objectivist. At that point we are discussing the statement "child abuse is harmful/bad" just like we discuss "the earth is a ball" or "rap music is good".

The disagree is the same as it's always been:

Some people believe child abuse is immoral. Both moral objectivists and moral subjectivists agree with this observation and make a further point. Moral objectivists say that the claims corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind, where as moral subjectivists say the claim does not corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind; or as I like to put it, opinion is all there is to it.

[The Tanager]

What exactly is the problem here, which part doesn't make sense? Here you accept that whether something is healthy or not, is independent from judgment. The consequences is objectively net damaging, regardless of whether the subject value enjoyment over health or not. And at the same time you've agreed with me all along that food taste is subjective, right? Which means you accept that there is no true judgment when it comes to food taste? From where I am sitting, you accept all the same stuff I do when the context is food, do you find you own stance not making sense or inconsistent also?

Why do you think the consequences are objectively net-damaging? Why is losing health and gaining pleasure an objective net-loss instead of a net-gain?

That's a hasty generalisation. Here you are talking about an objective matter - the shape of the Earth. Meanwhile the other statement is a subjective matter. An implicit "in my opinion" exist only in the latter kinds of statements, you can't generalise that rule to all statements.

"Rap music is good" (or "rap music is bad") is a complete statement that we both think is a subjective claim. Since we observe that probably everyone agrees, we assume that there is an implicit "in my opinion" when someone says "rap music is good" (or "rap music is bad"). That doesn't mean that we couldn't talk about whether "rap music is good," without the implicit "in my opinion," is objectively or subjectively true.

Simple subjectivism addresses a statement like "in Bust Nak's opinion rap music is good." That statement is objectively false.

Objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses the statement "rap music is good." We are both subjectivists here. On the quality of music, we think opinion is all there is; there is not one truth for all people. We think "rap music is good" is subjectively true/false. We think the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual. So, as subjectivists proper, we think "rap music is good" is true for my son and false for you.

That's right, but a flat-Earther wouldn't say that, he does not think the shape of the Earth is a matter of opinion.

"The earth is a ball" (or "the earth is flat") is a complete statement that we both think makes an objective claim. Since we observe that probably everyone agrees, we assume that there is no implicit "in my opinion" when someone says "the earth is a ball" (or "the earth is flat"). That doesn't mean that we couldn't talk about whether "in Johnny's opinion the earth is flat."

Simple subjectivism addresses a statement like "in Johnny's opinion the earth is flat." That statement, let's assume, is objectively true.

Objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses the statement "the earth is flat." We are both objectivists here. On the shape of the earth, we don't think opinion is all there is; there is a fact of the matter. We think "the earth is flat" is objectively false for everyone, regardless of their possible opinion otherwise. We think the truth of this statement depends upon something outside of the subjective tastes of each individual. So, as objectivists, we think "the earth is flat" is false for everyone we can think of, even for Johnny.

Some people believe child abuse is immoral. Both moral objectivists and moral subjectivists agree with this observation and make a further point. Moral objectivists say that the claims corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind, where as moral subjectivists say the claim does not corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind; or as I like to put it, opinion is all there is to it.

Simple subjectivism addresses a statement like "in Bust Nak's opinion child abuse is immoral." That statement is objectively true.

Objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses the statement "child abuse is immoral." A subjectivist believes that opinion is all there is; there is not one truth for all people. The subjectivist thinks "child abuse is immoral" is subjectively true/false. The subjectivist thinks the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual. So, the subjectivist proper thinks "child abuse is immoral" for Bust Nak and "child abuse is moral" for Johnny.

You are saying, I think, that you appraise that child abuse is immoral for Johnny as well. If so, then it's not immoral because of Johnny's subjective tastes but something external to Johnny's subjective tastes (Bust Nak's subjective tastes). Therefore, this would be an objective truth for Johnny, if true.

If morality is subjectivism proper, then there is no objective net-damage to child abuse. There is perceived damage to the child because it (or me or you) subjectively dislikes the abuse and there is benefit to the abuser who subjectively likes the abuse. Whether it is net-damage or net-benefit is relative to the subjective framework of the person looking in on the situation. But relative perceptions of damage is not objective damage.

Someone who believes this (i.e., subjectivism proper) should take that into account. They should, to remain consistent, act as though cries of damage are just perceptions in minds, opinions, not reality like the shape of the earth is. They should treat these perceptions, even their own, as mirages and not judge other people's actions as good or bad by them because they know its just a mirage. They should not act as though there is a "real shape of the earth" (or a "real badness to child abuse") that is true for everyone.

[Bust Nak]

Why do you think the consequences are objectively net-damaging? Why is losing health and gaining pleasure an objective net-loss instead of a net-gain?

Because healthy is healthy regardless of a subject's view on health. I also refer you to my other example, just as having a thing stolen from me, means I have to go without that thing, regardless of whether I want that thing or not.

I know what you are getting at though, try net-value-lost instead of net-damage. Value is subjective.

"Rap music is good" (or "rap music is bad") is a complete statement that we both think is a subjective claim. Since we observe that probably everyone agrees, we assume that there is an implicit "in my opinion" when someone says "rap music is good" (or "rap music is bad"). That doesn't mean that we couldn't talk about whether "rap music is good," without the implicit "in my opinion," is objectively or subjectively true.

Without the implicit "in my opinion," "rap music is good" is incoherent and not a proposition, neither objectively true nor objectively false. I also said that the very concept of "subjectively true" is a no no since truth has to reflect objective reality. Did that qualify as talking about whether "rap music is good," without the implicit "in my opinion?"

Simple subjectivism addresses a statement like "in Bust Nak's opinion rap music is good." That statement is objectively false.

Objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses the statement "rap music is good." We are both subjectivists here. On the quality of music, we think opinion is all there is; there is not one truth for all people. We think "rap music is good" is subjectively true/false.

We don't. I think there is no such thing as subjectively true or false.

We think the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual. So, as subjectivists proper, we think "rap music is good" is true for my son and false for you.

Back to agreement.

"The earth is a ball" (or "the earth is flat") is a complete statement that we both think makes an objective claim. Since we observe that probably everyone agrees, we assume that there is no implicit "in my opinion" when someone says "the earth is a ball" (or "the earth is flat"). That doesn't mean that we couldn't talk about whether "in Johnny's opinion the earth is flat."

Simple subjectivism addresses a statement like "in Johnny's opinion the earth is flat." That statement, let's assume, is objectively true.

Objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses the statement "the earth is flat." We are both objectivists here. On the shape of the earth, we don't think opinion is all there is; there is a fact of the matter. We think "the earth is flat" is objectively false for everyone, regardless of their possible opinion otherwise. We think the truth of this statement depends upon something outside of the subjective tastes of each individual. So, as objectivists, we think "the earth is flat" is false for everyone we can think of, even for Johnny.

No problems there, objectivism is easy to get.

Simple subjectivism addresses a statement like "in Bust Nak's opinion child abuse is immoral." That statement is objectively true.

Objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses the statement "child abuse is immoral." A subjectivist believes that opinion is all there is; there is not one truth for all people. The subjectivist thinks "child abuse is immoral" is subjectively true/false. The subjectivist thinks the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual. So, the subjectivist proper thinks "child abuse is immoral" for Bust Nak and "child abuse is moral" for Johnny.

Same complain as above re: subjective truth.

You are saying, I think, that you appraise that child abuse is immoral for Johnny as well.

That sounds like nonsense to me. Who is the subject supposed to be here, me or Johnny? Surely it can't be both? That's like saying I've tasted this pizza and Johnny likes it. I mean you can infer that Johnny may like it based on your what you know of Johnny taste, but you can't zap your opinion of a pizza into his brain, and make it his opinion.

No, I am saying that I appraise that child abuse is immoral for me, when Johnny is the one abusing children. I am the subject, the appraisal is done for me, by me.

If so...

n/a

If morality is subjectivism proper, then there is no objective net-damage to child abuse. There is perceived damage to the child because it (or me or you) subjectively dislikes the abuse and there is benefit to the abuser who subjectively likes the abuse. Whether it is net-damage or net-benefit is relative to the subjective framework of the person looking in on the situation. But relative perceptions of damage is not objective damage.

Mentally swapping damage with value-lost. Sure.

Someone who believes this (i.e., subjectivism proper) should take that into account. They should, to remain consistent, act as though cries of damage are just perceptions in minds, opinions, not reality like the shape of the earth is.

So far so good. The next bit however...

They should treat these perceptions, even their own, as mirages and not judge other people's actions as good or bad by them because they know its just a mirage.

Why treat it as a mirage? That implies it's false. Why not should treat these perceptions, even our own, as perceptions because that's exactly what it is? And then judge other people's actions as good or bad because we know its just a perceptions and perceptions are all there is to it? That's what I do.

Again think music taste, do you not simple listen to random station without regard to whether you like that music or not, because you know music taste is just a mirage?

Or think food taste, do you not simple eat food base solely on nutritious value regardless of how it taste to you, because you know food taste is just a mirage?

They should not act as though there is a "real shape of the earth" (or a "real badness to child abuse") that is true for everyone.

Back to agreement, no problems here.

[The Tanager]

Because healthy is healthy regardless of a subject's view on health. I also refer you to my other example, just as having a thing stolen from me, means I have to go without that thing, regardless of whether I want that thing or not.

I know what you are getting at though, try net-value-lost instead of net-damage. Value is subjective.

Okay.

Without the implicit "in my opinion," "rap music is good" is incoherent and not a proposition, neither objectively true nor objectively false.

If "rap music is good" is not a coherent proposition, then "the earth is a ball" is not a coherent proposition. The former, taken without the "in my opinion" addition, is not incoherent but objectively false...because opinion is all there is with regards to whether a certain style of music is good.

I also said that the very concept of "subjectively true" is a no no since truth has to reflect objective reality. Did that qualify as talking about whether "rap music is good," without the implicit "in my opinion?"

Something being subjectively true does reflect objective reality. "Rap music is bad to Bust Nak and good to The Tanager's son" is a statement that is objectively true. It objectively states that the truth of "rap music is good" is subjective.

We don't. I think there is no such thing as subjectively true or false.

We think the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual. So, as subjectivists proper, we think "rap music is good" is true for my son and false for you.

Back to agreement.

Something being "subjectively true or false" is a synonym for "the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual."

That sounds like nonsense to me. Who is the subject supposed to be here, me or Johnny? Surely it can't be both? That's like saying I've tasted this pizza and Johnny likes it. I mean you can infer that Johnny may like it based on your what you know of Johnny taste, but you can't zap your opinion of a pizza into his brain, and make it his opinion.

No, I am saying that I appraise that child abuse is immoral for me, when Johnny is the one abusing children. I am the subject, the appraisal is done for me, by me.

If that is all you are appraising, then that is simple subjectivism.

They should treat these perceptions, even their own, as mirages and not judge other people's actions as good or bad by them because they know its just a mirage.

Why treat it as a mirage? That implies it's false. Why not should treat these perceptions, even our own, as perceptions because that's exactly what it is? And then judge other people's actions as good or bad because we know its just a perceptions and perceptions are all there is to it? That's what I do.

Because you are claiming to go beyond simple subjectivism...the mere sharing of what your (or someone else's) view is. You are making a statement about reality itself, if you are getting into objectivism vs. subjectivism proper. The objectivist says that morality is an objective feature of reality, i.e., a feature of reality beyond the subject's mind (in this case, Johnny's mind or in another instance of thought, Timmy's mind, or in another instance of thought, Bust Nak's mind, etc.). The subjectivist proper says that morality is a subjective feature of reality, i.e., dependent on the reality within the subject's mind (in one case of thought, Johnny, etc.), or their opinion.

Again think music taste, do you not simple listen to random station without regard to whether you like that music or not, because you know music taste is just a mirage?

Or think food taste, do you not simple eat food base solely on nutritious value regardless of how it taste to you, because you know food taste is just a mirage?

No, but that's talking about what music I choose to listen to. When thinking about what kind of thing our music tastes are, it has nothing to do with what station I'm listening to. When thinking about what kind of thing our food tastes are, it has nothing to do with what I choose to eat for lunch today. When thinking about what kind of thing morality is (which is what objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses), it has nothing to do with what I choose to do when confronted with an opportunity to abuse a child. Simple subjectivism can get at what I think one should to do.

[Bust Nak]

If "rap music is good" is not a coherent proposition, then "the earth is a ball" is not a coherent proposition.

Why? You say if/then, run me through your thinking process.

The former, taken without the "in my opinion" addition, is not incoherent but objectively false...because opinion is all there is with regards to whether a certain style of music is good.

If you accept that opinion is all there is with regard to whether a certain style of music, whose opinion are we talking about by "rap music is good?"

Something being subjectively true does reflect objective reality.

Then it's just true.

"Rap music is bad to Bust Nak and good to The Tanager's son" is a statement that is objectively true. It objectively states that the truth of "rap music is good" is subjective.

Not seeing any subjective truth in there.

Something being "subjectively true or false" is a synonym for "the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual."

Then you run into contradictions along the lines of "rap music is good" is both true and false.

If that is all you are appraising, then that is simple subjectivism.

You are still missing the bit that makes it subjectivism proper - that a subject's appraising, is all there is to the matter.

Because you are claiming to go beyond simple subjectivism...the mere sharing of what your (or someone else's) view is. You are making a statement about reality itself, if you are getting into objectivism vs. subjectivism proper. The objectivist says that morality is an objective feature of reality, i.e., a feature of reality beyond the subject's mind (in this case, Johnny's mind or in another instance of thought, Timmy's mind, or in another instance of thought, Bust Nak's mind, etc.). The subjectivist proper says that morality is a subjective feature of reality, i.e., dependent on the reality within the subject's mind (in one case of thought, Johnny, etc.), or their opinion.

Right, not seeing how that affects what I said. Why not judge other people's actions as good or bad because we know morality is subjective feature of reality and dependent of the reality within a subject's mind? That's what I do.

No, but that's talking about what music I choose to listen to. When thinking about what kind of thing our music tastes are, it has nothing to do with what station I'm listening to. When thinking about what kind of thing our food tastes are, it has nothing to do with what I choose to eat for lunch today. When thinking about what kind of thing morality is (which is what objectivism vs. subjectivism proper addresses), it has nothing to do with what I choose to do when confronted with an opportunity to abuse a child. Simple subjectivism can get at what I think one should to do.

Okay, I like the taste of ham and cheese which informed what I choose to eat for lunch today - ham and cheese sandwich. What you stated here, changes that, how?
Unless you are suggesting that food taste just simple subjectivism, not seeing the point you are making. So what if the nature of food taste having nothing to do with what I choose for lunch?

[The Tanager]

If "rap music is good" is not a coherent proposition, then "the earth is a ball" is not a coherent proposition.

Why? You say if/then, run me through your thinking process.

If you accept that opinion is all there is with regard to whether a certain style of music, whose opinion are we talking about by "rap music is good?"

No one's opinion. We are talking about whether music taste is more than just opinions or not. The statement that music taste is more than just opinions is not incoherent, it's false.

"Rap music is bad to Bust Nak and good to The Tanager's son" is a statement that is objectively true. It objectively states that the truth of "rap music is good" is subjective.

Not seeing any subjective truth in there.

It is objectively true that rap music being good depends on the taste of who you ask (subjective truth), not on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste (objective truth).

Something being "subjectively true or false" is a synonym for "the truth of this statement depends upon the subjective tastes of each individual."

Then you run into contradictions along the lines of "rap music is good" is both true and false.

How is it a contradiction to say that "rap music is good" is true for The Tanager's Son, but false for Bust Nak?

No, I am saying that I appraise that child abuse is immoral for me, when Johnny is the one abusing children. I am the subject, the appraisal is done for me, by me.

If that is all you are appraising, then that is simple subjectivism.

You are still missing the bit that makes it subjectivism proper - that a subject's appraising, is all there is to the matter.

But your statement above doesn't say that a subject's appraising is all there is to the matter; it's saying what your appraisal is. Subjectivism proper says that the world is full of Bust Nak's appraisal, Johnny's appraisal, and The Tanager's appraisal, etc., but no objective moral fact that coincides with one of those appraisals. A subjectivist proper now acts on that belief in a way a simple subjectivist doesn't: since opinions are all there is, [fill in the blank]. This blank to be filled in is not about how it affects your opinion, but what you make of your opinion being one among other equally true opinions.

If your opinion of the shape of the earth is objectively true (because it is backed up by scientific investigation), then you act upon it: since opinions are not all there is, the "earth is a ball" is wrong for Johnny to believe.

When you talk about morality, you seem to mix these two things: since opinion is all there is (subjectivism), "child abuse is good" is wrong for Johnny to believe (objectivism).

Now, maybe you aren't saying this last piece. If not, then all you are saying is "my opinion is..." which is simple subjectivism. Or, perhaps, when you say the second bit you mean "Johnny's belief is different than mine." If so, then you are still just saying "my and Johnny's opinions are..." which is simple subjectivism.

Right, not seeing how that affects what I said. Why not judge other people's actions as good or bad because we know morality is subjective feature of reality and dependent of the reality within a subject's mind? That's what I do.

I don't think you do. You judge Johnny's child abuse as bad because of something outside of Johnny's mind. Just like you judge Johnny's flat earth belief as bad/wrong because of something outside of Johnny's mind. Doing so acts as though opinion is not all there is. There is something outside of everyone's opinion (but your own) that you judge their actions by, the objective feature of reality known as Bust Nak's views. If you think morality is a subjective feature of reality, then why judge all humans by one objective feature of reality?

Okay, I like the taste of ham and cheese which informed what I choose to eat for lunch today - ham and cheese sandwich. What you stated here, changes that, how?
Unless you are suggesting that food taste just simple subjectivism, not seeing the point you are making. So what if the nature of food taste having nothing to do with what I choose for lunch?

It's an attempt to differentiate subjectivism proper from simple subjectivism because I think you keep falling back on simple subjectivism. Subjectivism proper has nothing to do with any particular opinion. It's a belief built upon a thought that we have no fact to judge any opinions by, including our own. Yes, we can judge them as "ours" or "not ours" but nothing more than that.

But then you seem to judge Johnny's opinion, at least his thought that it is good for him to abuse a child, as wrong (not just "not mine" or "in disagreement with mine"). You seem to judge Johnny by the objective fact of your personal tastes. You judge one opinion (your own) as superior to others.

Obviously, in a simple subjectivist sense, we all judge our opinion as superior to others. But subjectivism proper says opinion is all there is, no opinion is more correct than another's, not even my own.

[Bust Nak]

No one's opinion. We are talking about whether music taste is more than just opinions or not. The statement that music taste is more than just opinions is not incoherent, it's false.

But you just affirmed that music taste is just a matter of opinion. "An opinion that is no one's opinion" is not incoherent?

It is objectively true that rap music being good depends on the taste of who you ask (subjective truth), not on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste (objective truth).

What advantage does that view have, over this one: It is objectively true that rap music being good depends on the taste of who you ask, not on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste (objective truth.)

How is it a contradiction to say that "rap music is good" is true for The Tanager's Son, but false for Bust Nak?

"Rap music is good" & "rap music is good" takes the from of A & A.

But your statement above doesn't say that a subject's appraising is all there is to the matter; it's saying what your appraisal is. Subjectivism proper says that the world is full of Bust Nak's appraisal, Johnny's appraisal, and The Tanager's appraisal, etc., but no objective moral fact that coincides with one of those appraisals.

So far so good. That's the view I hold.

A subjectivist proper now acts on that belief in a way a simple subjectivist doesn't: since opinions are all there is, [fill in the blank]. This blank to be filled in is not about how it affects your opinion, but what you make of your opinion being one among other equally true opinions.

Stop for a bit. What is a pure simple subjectivist though? Someone who is agnostic as to subjectivism proper, vs objectivism? How is such a person supposed to act? Both subjectivists proper and objectivists are also simple subjectivists, right?

If your opinion of the shape of the earth is objectively true (because it is backed up by scientific investigation), then you act upon it: since opinions are not all there is, the "earth is a ball" is wrong for Johnny to believe.

Right, but that doesn't tell you that a subject's appraising is not all there is to the matter; it's saying what an objectivist's appraisal is, why are not challenging that as mere simple subjectivism?

When you talk about morality, you seem to mix these two things: since opinion is all there is (subjectivism), "child abuse is good" is wrong for Johnny to believe (objectivism).

Nah, both are subjectivism: "child abuse is good" is wrong for Johnny to believe (subjectivism.) That is my appraisal and it is one out of many. That's subjectivism proper, isn't it?

Now, maybe you aren't saying this last piece. If not, then all you are saying is "my opinion is..." which is simple subjectivism. Or, perhaps, when you say the second bit you mean "Johnny's belief is different than mine." If so, then you are still just saying "my and Johnny's opinions are..." which is simple subjectivism.

Why would it have to be one or the other?

I don't think you do. You judge Johnny's child abuse as bad because of something outside of Johnny's mind. Just like you judge Johnny's flat earth belief as bad/wrong because of something outside of Johnny's mind.

Right, but outside of Johnny's mind is not the same thing as outside of a subject's mind. I am not acting as though it's outside of a subject's mind, instead I am acting as though opinion is all there is.

There is something outside of everyone's opinion (but your own) that you judge their actions by, the objective feature of reality known as Bust Nak's views. If you think morality is a subjective feature of reality, then why judge all humans by one objective feature of reality?

Again, think music taste: There is something outside of everyone's opinion (but your own) that you judge music by, the objective feature of reality known as The Tanager's views. If you think music taste is a subjective feature of reality, then why judge music by one objective feature of reality?

It's an attempt to differentiate subjectivism proper from simple subjectivism because I think you keep falling back on simple subjectivism. Subjectivism proper has nothing to do with any particular opinion. It's a belief built upon a thought that we have no fact to judge any opinions by, including our own. Yes, we can judge them as "ours" or "not ours" but nothing more than that.

But then you seem to judge Johnny's opinion, at least his thought that it is good for him to abuse a child, as wrong (not just "not mine" or "in disagreement with mine").

So far so good.

You seem to judge Johnny by the objective fact of your personal tastes.

No, I judge Johnny by the subjective opinion of my personal tastes.

You judge one opinion (your own) as superior to others.

Back to agreement.

Obviously, in a simple subjectivist sense, we all judge our opinion as superior to others. But subjectivism proper says opinion is all there is, no opinion is more correct than another's, not even my own.

And that means I am not supposed to judge our opinion as superior to others, how? I am a simple subjectivist AND a subjectivist proper, you are a simple subjectivist AND an objectivist, right? I can't point to your simple subjectivist act and conclude that you are not an objectivist, right?

[The Tanager]

No one's opinion. We are talking about whether music taste is more than just opinions or not. The statement that music taste is more than just opinions is not incoherent, it's false.

But you just affirmed that music taste is just a matter of opinion. "An opinion that is no one's opinion" is not incoherent?

I'm saying that when talking about the aesthetic value of music being objective or subjective, we aren't talking about anyone's particular opinion that rap music is good or bad. To say the value is subjective is not incoherent. Obviously, we are talking about a person's opinion that the aesthetic value of morality is subjective.

It is objectively true that rap music being good depends on the taste of who you ask (subjective truth), not on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste (objective truth).

What advantage does that view have, over this one: It is objectively true that rap music being good depends on the taste of who you ask, not on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste (objective truth.)

So, you took out the "(subjective truth)" parenthesis? It has no advantage because (subjective truth) is a synonym for "depends on the taste of who you ask". Just like "(objective truth)" is a synonym for "depends...on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste."

"Rap music is good" & "rap music is good" takes the from of A & A.

But I'm not saying that. I'm not saying R is true full stop and not-R is true full stop. I'm saying that R is true for my son and R is false for Bust Nak.

Stop for a bit. What is a pure simple subjectivist though? Someone who is agnostic as to subjectivism proper, vs objectivism?

They are either agnostic or simply aren't addressing that issue, although they hold a position.

How is such a person supposed to act?

They would, I think, simply follow their opinion without any thought about it being subjective or objective.

Both subjectivists proper and objectivists are also simple subjectivists, right?

Yes, they are simple subjectivists-plus.

Right, but that doesn't tell you that a subject's appraising is not all there is to the matter; it's saying what an objectivist's appraisal is, why are not challenging that as mere simple subjectivism?

The objectivist is making at least two appraisals in this case: (1) that he believes the earth is a ball and (2) that the earth is a ball for everyone else as well (whether they believe the earth is a ball or flat). Stopping at (1)...or also stating that Johnny believes the earth is flat...is simple subjectivism.

When you talk about morality, you seem to mix these two things: since opinion is all there is (subjectivism), "child abuse is good" is wrong for Johnny to believe (objectivism).

Nah, both are subjectivism: "child abuse is good" is wrong for Johnny to believe (subjectivism.) That is my appraisal and it is one out of many. That's subjectivism proper, isn't it?

When you say that "'the earth is flat' is wrong for Johnny to believe," is that subjectivism? That is your appraisal and it is one out of many (at least two options). Is that subjectivism proper?

Now, maybe you aren't saying this last piece. If not, then all you are saying is "my opinion is..." which is simple subjectivism. Or, perhaps, when you say the second bit you mean "Johnny's belief is different than mine." If so, then you are still just saying "my and Johnny's opinions are..." which is simple subjectivism.

Why would it have to be one or the other?

It doesn't necessarily have to be. I'm always open to seeing an option I've overlooked.

Right, but outside of Johnny's mind is not the same thing as outside of a subject's mind. I am not acting as though it's outside of a subject's mind, instead I am acting as though opinion is all there is.

I think there are two senses of subjective and objective we are discussing, which is a big part of the confusion. We are a subject and we think about objects. Everything we say is subjective in that sense. I think simple subjectivism addresses that sense of subjectivism. What do the various subjects that exist say?

But we are also interested in what kinds of things subjects say. Objectivists say there is a truth outside of the particular individual under consideration which makes something true, whether that individual subjectively agrees with it or not. Others disagree with objectivists and say there is no truth outside of particular individuals' subjective opinions on the matter.

The aesthetic value of music is an object we think about that depends on everyone's individual aesthetic tastes; thus we call the aesthetic value of music a subjective thing. The value of the shape of the earth is an object that we think does not depend on people's individual tastes; thus we think there is an objective truth.

I think you are acting as though your opinion is all there is when you look at morality; not that opinions are all there is. Child abuse is wrong for you because your objective taste is against it. Child abuse is wrong for Johnny because your objective taste is against it. You don't think moral taste is dependent on people's subjective tastes; you hold your subjective tastes up as the objective judge for all.

There is something outside of everyone's opinion (but your own) that you judge their actions by, the objective feature of reality known as Bust Nak's views. If you think morality is a subjective feature of reality, then why judge all humans by one objective feature of reality?

Again, think music taste: There is something outside of everyone's opinion (but your own) that you judge music by, the objective feature of reality known as The Tanager's views. If you think music taste is a subjective feature of reality, then why judge music by one objective feature of reality?

We aren't talking about my judgement of individual kinds of music here but my judgment of music taste itself. Judging music taste as a subjective thing means thinking there is nothing outside of everyone's opinion, including the objective feature of reality known as The Tanager's view on what makes good music, to judge everyone's music taste by. I don't judge music tastes by my subjective preference. I think differing musical tastes are just as good or valid as my own. I treat moral tastes differently; some are not as good or valid as my own.

Obviously, in a simple subjectivist sense, we all judge our opinion as superior to others. But subjectivism proper says opinion is all there is, no opinion is more correct than another's, not even my own.

And that means I am not supposed to judge our opinion as superior to others, how?

We judge our opinion of the shape of the earth as superior to others. That's saying opinion is not all there is. To say that opinion is all there is to it means not judging our opinion as superior to others' opinions.